I finally got our copy of the new 40mm macro lens and I must say, I'm very impressed. It's actually a very useful focal range, even though we own and use fast 35 and 50mm primes. Here are my thoughts on the lens. I will post sample pics tomorrow after I have some time with the lens.

The AF-S Micro-Nikkor 40mm f/2.8 was tested on both of our D7000s.

Pros:
1. Extremely sharp, even wide open. The lens is no departure from Nikon's method of making a super sharp Macro lens. I compared the 40mm DX macro to the amazing 105mm f/2.8 VR macro and @ 1:1 magnification, I could barely tell the difference. The 105mm Macro had slightly better contrast but was not much sharper(if at all). Onced stopped down, I really couldn't tell the difference and I have a very discerning eye.

2. Small and light. This lens is very small and very portable as well as being very light. It's slightly larger than the 35mm 1.8G DX lens and weights about the same as the 50mm 1.8G(to my hands).

3. Very little distortion. I couldn't detect any serious distortion, as you would expect for a Micro-Nikkor.

4. Has a decent focus scale.

5. Build quality seems about the same as the new 50mm 1.8G, a step above the 35mm 1.8G DX lens. The focus ring is solid and smooth. The lens has a metal mount and an Ass-Gasket.

7. Last but not least, GREAT bokeh! At least in my opinion. Bokeh is very subjective, but I find it to be very pleasant. Not the creamiest bokeh ever, but damn impressive for the price.

Cons:
1. Somewhat slow AF-S. The Silent Wave Motor is slower than expected, but very very accurate. Which, for a Macro lens is actually a "pro". If this lens is used for general photography, the AF speed might get annoying.

2. Close working distance. 1:1 reproduction occurs at mere inches from the front lens element. This gives you very little room to work and makes proper lighting of your subject somewhat difficult(unless you're using a dedicated Macro flash rig). This is especially difficult if you're using the lens hood. I had to remove the lens hood to allow extra light between the lens and the subject. This is not a deal breaker(especially not for the price), but rather an annoyance.

3. DX only. Now this in my opinion, is actually a "Pro" as well(for Macro work) and a "Con" for general purpose photography. Macro work should always be carried out on DX, due to the added crop factor. I always do macro work on DX for this very reason. It would of been nice to use the lens on a FX body, as this would be a decent semi-wide angle prime for general photography. I have yet to try this lens on FX, it will probably work, but with heavy vignetting. I'll have to report back on this.

4. Inner barrel extends as magnification increases. This makes working distance issues even worse at high magnification. It would of been better to make the lens an IF(Internal Focus) design, but this would made the lens much larger, heavier and more expensive.

I think this pretty much covers my initial thoughts. Overall, it's very impressive, especially for the money.

Superb pictures. Obviously a very capable lens (and photographer! :-) The need to be so close to the subject would be a problem for me though. Having only FF bodies, I use the 105, that's a great lens also. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts CaryTheLabelGuy.

The one thing about the 105mm is its weight and price. The working distance helps, but it can also get in the way.

For instance, if you're trying to photograph something in a bush or a bunch of tall grass and don't want to get in tight, the working distance works against you in the sense that you can't photograph the whole bug without photographing the clutter as well.

One more question- does the front element rotate as well, since the barrel moves in and out when it focuses?

That's a big downer for weather proofing.

I think if this had come out when I got my 105mm I think I would have given this a consideration.

The one thing about the 105mm is its weight and price. The working distance helps, but it can also get in the way.

For instance, if you're trying to photograph something in a bush or a bunch of tall grass and don't want to get in tight, the working distance works against you in the sense that you can't photograph the whole bug without photographing the clutter as well.

One more question- does the front element rotate as well, since the barrel moves in and out when it focuses?

That's a big downer for weather proofing.

I think if this had come out when I got my 105mm I think I would have given this a consideration.

Agreed. The 105mm VR is in a league of it's own, of course. I wasn't trying to compare the two really, just that the 40mm f/2.8 macro is very sharp with great contrast. The 40mm macro is amazingly sharp....... I really am very impressed with it's crazy sharpness, wide-open. It's even super sharp @ f/16-20, which is diffraction limited on D7000. This shows just how sharp the lens really is.

One more question- does the front element rotate as well, since the barrel moves in and out when it focuses?

That's a big downer for weather proofing.

CaryTheLabelGuy obviously read your question as if you were referring to the DX lens. I on the other hand thought you were asking about the 105, as that was the lens you had just been speaking about. Which one NSX? Nothing moves externally on the 105.

SkintBrit said:
CaryTheLabelGuy obviously read your question as if you were referring to the DX lens. I on the other hand thought you were asking about the 105, as that was the lens you had just been speaking about. Which one NSX? Nothing moves externally on the 105.

I was originally asking about the 40mm about the barrel rotation, but I commented on the 105 as well.

Yes, nice review on the blog. I won't get the lens, but I liked to read it.

People that comments on the blog page need to get a life though. Point them in the direction of DxO or something so they can have a program tell them how great the lens is...people complain about anything don't they? The point was a personal review and everyone was complaining about what format the pics were in or small grammatical errors. Although since there is no side by side picture with another lens in the same conditions I am not sure what someone needs an uedited RAW format picture or whatever they wanted for??? It looked sharp to me.

I think you are taking it a bit too personally: most comments are given with the spirit of helping you improve your review. Even if you don't make any changes, you can still keep some of those ideas in mind for next time.

Anyway, I thought it was pretty good (although I did suggest a couple of minor changes). Informal review are usually far more useful than detailed tests anyway.

tcole1983 said:
Yes, nice review on the blog. I won't get the lens, but I liked to read it.

People that comments on the blog page need to get a life though. Point them in the direction of DxO or something so they can have a program tell them how great the lens is...people complain about anything don't they? The point was a personal review and everyone was complaining about what format the pics were in or small grammatical errors. Although since there is no side by side picture with another lens in the same conditions I am not sure what someone needs an uedited RAW format picture or whatever they wanted for??? It looked sharp to me.

jerl said:
I think you are taking it a bit too personally: most comments are given with the spirit of helping you improve your review. Even if you don't make any changes, you can still keep some of those ideas in mind for next time.

Anyway, I thought it was pretty good (although I did suggest a couple of minor changes). Informal review are usually far more useful than detailed tests anyway.

I honestly didn't take anything too seriously. Emotion is very hard to convey/perceive in "text-only" communication. Some people made some really great points, that I seriously took to heart and will use on my next go-around. I'm sorry if it came across that way.